I finally managed to put together the latest theoretical know-how concerning antimatter based high yield energy production. Without further due... check out Antimatter Bomb. The paper lays out the theoretical blueprint for antimatter based bomb, it presents needed core material (solid hydrogen), theoretical requirements and used method. The paper does not describe any technical requirements, engineering solutions and so on. Pulling off a technical solution take (most likely) several years, hence sooner we start the research then bigger are the chances for preventing surprise asteroids.
I regard my paper as informative as saying that by splitting Uranium-235 atoms with neutrons we can release energy, it's just theoretical knowledge. Of course antimatter based energy production as described in the paper is easier to accomplish than e.g. fission based energy production, but never the less, it's just theoretical knowledge, and on top of that, it's highly speculative paper!
I do hope that my paper generates some debate and possibly encourages some bold experimental particle physicists to give it a try. Let's hope for the best!
For various reasons I suspect that gamma ray bursts are mainly "man-made". Obviously those civilizations which ignited a GRB and which were vanished at the event could have been most bizarre looking creatures but never the less, intelligent enough to trigger a GRB. Due to the nature of these GRBs I have called one as the Great Filter.
GRBs come in various durations and radiation signatures, so can they really be "man-made"? How can those short and hour lasting events be triggered by some intelligent civilization and what explains the detected duration variations?
Let's hypothesize that ignited GRB chain reaction proceeds with the speed of light. How long would it take in case of Earth (diameter km)? It would take only seconds! Annihilating for example Moon would take seconds. Detected duration from billions of light years away would be even shorter than those theoretical time frames. Depending on the amount of surrounding matter and other factors involved in the annihilation process detected radiation peaks can be sharp and/or smooth.
How long it would take if we started a GRB here on Earth to annihilate both Earth and Moon? Well, it wouldn't take too long for sure... approximately second! And it's radiation profile would include two radiation peaks. Interesting... let's stretch our imagination and say that we would manage to annihilate also Mars when it were pretty close to us, something like km away. In that unfortunate case the whole chain reaction would take seconds! (Including three peaks; two initial peaks would be very close to each other)
Different solar systems around the universe come in many different setups which can explain all kinds of GRB profiles. Why sometimes more than one stellar object is annihilated? It has to depend on the initial annihilating object. If a larger object is the ground zero then it's more likely to take a neighbouring stellar object within the chain reaction. But in case of smaller initially annihilating object or in case of a bigger distance between two neighbouring objects chances are that only one stellar object is annihilated. So it doesn't mean that in case of a GRB chain reaction the whole solar system will be wiped out, but it surely can.
In case of total annihilation of solar system, the expected time frame would be (in case of our solar system and Earth was the ground zero) something like minutes... over four hours. This calculation surely makes one think.
What a heck? It has been over year from the flyby but no results released by NASA. How hard that can be? Seriously. NASA could have put like a short tweet or something out for two weeks after the flyby... but nooo! I wonder why...?
Maybe those results are buried under somebody's backyard or something? Are those results classified for some reason? Anyway, my prediction mm/s at perigee looks pretty strong, at least when I retrodict those previous flybys with my formula.
Update: I had a quite interesting tweet exchange with Mike McCulloch who told that he got confirmation from former NASA employee that there wasn't any anomalous velocity increase with Juno Earth flyby. On top of that, he got that information only a week after the flyby.
@mustavalo A week after the flyby then again yesterday. My NASA contact, tho' good, is retired now & may not know what's happening at HQ?
Weird part is that in AGU Fall Meeting 2013 there was an ePoster (which is now non-accessible, here's its abstract thou) which said that the data analysis is still ongoing. It included also a picture which kind of hinted that some kind of anomalous increase was measurable... pretty strange! On the other hand, Mike told that there is some "tension" regarding these flyby anomalies in NASA.
@mustavalo Thanks. No anomaly mentioned tho. I was warned once by Claudio Maccone that there's much 'tension' at NASA over these anomalies.
You can read more on the anomalous spin-spin correlation from here (chapter 3). What's up with that? Well, a lot, at least for TOEBI. Based on the experiments I can claim that proton annihilations in mass scale can't be done with proton beams. Most likely same applies to electron beams. Therefore the only viable option is the experiment (solid hydrogen based) described earlier. In future, I'll keep on pitching on that experiment.
But what happens in case of that anomalous spin-spin correlation? From TOEBI's point of view (PoV) things appear more clear than from QCD PoV. What prevents annihilation of colliding protons? In order to annihilate, colliding protons must gain close enough proximity, their spins must be antiparallel (normal to beam) with precision approach. How easy it that with proton beams? Not that easy for sure, firstly, getting perfectly polarized beams is next to impossible. Spin vectors (TOEBI defined) are not necessarily precisely aligned and even smallest deviation generates something else than pion production what we are looking for.
Protons moving near the speed of light has gained also increased spinning frequency ( times the rest spinning frequency). Increased spinning frequency means that those three electrons (constructing proton) generate bigger FTEP flux around them, in other words, a bigger buffer between them and another particle(s). Increased buffer protects proton from too easy annihilation process in case of collision.
If proton spins are parallel then elastic scattering happens normally (with proper energy scale) as expected by TOEBI or QCD, if spins are antiparallel things go more complicated. Why's that? Antiparallel spins mean that contacting protons' electrons are physically spinning into opposite directions.
At close proximity these into opposite directions spinning electrons interact more massively than into same direction spinning electrons. When electrons spin into same direction generated FTEP (Force Transfer Ether Particle, the smallest particle) flux flows into same direction also, hence those interacting electrons scatter more easily away from each other. In case of opposite spinning directions (see picture), generated FTEP flux starts to build up between interacting electrons, which then causes more easily these electrons to change their spinning orientations towards (more dense local FTE) incoming particle, resulting inelastic collision (new particles are created by compressing FTEPs together, read more from TOEBI).
Asymmetry between the number of elastic scatterings between parallel and antiparallel spins is roughly 4:1 which is enormous amount and QCD is totally clueless about it. Can we derive that ratio from TOEBI? Good question... Let's say that almost every encounter between parallel spin protons experience elastic scattering and let's assume that protons with antiparallel spins experience inelastic scattering when at least one of their electrons collide heads on. Let's start counting...
We can find four different collision types. Those black balls in the picture remarks exactly intersecting colliding proton electrons (which in case of antiparallel spins means inelastic collision). When all three proton electrons hit head on, no matter what their spin directions are, there will be inelastic collision. Conclusion, for every single inelastic scattering of parallel spin protons there is four inelastic scatterings of antiparallel spin protons (1:4), so trivially, there will be four elastic scatterings of parallel spin protons per one elastic scattering of antiparallel spin protons (4:1).
Conclusion: No anomalous correlation according to TOEBI.
It's almost the time for the results of Juno's Earth flyby. I'm considering one year as the deadline for NASA publishing and in less than three weeks, we'll hit the deadline. My previous ideas about how to calculate an amount of flyby anomaly were wrong or inadequate. TOEBI is not in the level of explaining adequately why and with what magnitude a flyby anomaly occurs.
However, the key factor is a spacecraft's spinning frequency. Every previous flyby anomalies can be determined by it. When a spacecraft hits the perigee it has gained approximately a half of its maximal anomalous additional velocity, no matter what's its mass, velocity or incoming angles etc. Ok, why approximately half of its maximal anomalous additional velocity? Well, also spacecraft's spinning plane is a factor, but in most of the cases, spinning plane has been towards Earth's center when the perigee is hit.
Juno had its spinning plane towards Earth's center at perigee. Measured spinning frequency at that point was 1/s. In TOEBI, particles and stellar objects generate interaction through spinning, which effects by factor of , so it's natural to expect the same in cases of flyby anomaly. Now, we get the number , which is my prediction for Juno's anomalous speed increase at perigee. But wait a minute, where are the units, m/s? Good question... I don't know! I haven't figured out it yet, it just works, ok.
There has been numerous flybys over time and every time the spacecraft has been spinning with its spinning plane towards Earth near the perigee, anomalous speed increase has been detected. No spinning, no flyby anomaly! And in cases of spinning spacecraft, detected speed increase matches my pattern, except in cases where there has been mid flyby maneuvers or flyby occurred at too low altitude (atmosphere caused drag).
After the perigee, spacecraft is still gaining an extra acceleration (hence speed increase) due to its spinning. In most cases, after perigee speed increase is pretty much as big as speed increase gained before the perigee. Those two would be identical if spinning frequency and plane were symmetrical before and after the perigee. Unfortunately, in case of Juno, there happened something at the perigee which caused Juno to go into the safe mode and that might have caused some changes to both spinning frequency and orientation of spinning plane.
I hope, that after published NASA results I'll get my (fulltime) chance to develop TOEBI further so that it will be capable of explaining the flyby anomaly mechanism in detail.
The Name of the Game - Antimatter based bomb, that's the only way prevent imminent armageddon in reality. According to the mainstream physics antimatter bomb isn't an option, it takes too long and too much energy produce enough antimatter for the prevention purpose. Also storing antimatter is overwhelmingly difficult, current record time is somewhere near 15 minutes. Conclusion, antimatter bomb based solution is impossible...
... or is it? Let's see what TOEBI offers. Based on TOEBI, antimatter based bomb is in theory possible to build, see my previous posts on the topic. Do mainstream physicists really have the balls not to make the experiment? I mean, every lost week, month, year diminishes our chances in case of incoming devastating surprise asteroid. Apparently they have the balls! Most likely explanation is their ignorance and arrogance, those who are not familiar with my theory are ignorant and those who are familiar with, are just arrogant.
What can I do? Not that much by myself, but you can help me... spread the word! We might have a fighting chance in case of potential armageddon, even in case of late discovery. Let's make the mainstream physicists try out my idea! Costs are minimal but the potential gain is astronomical.
I just managed to watch the movie, Particle Fever. Even though all of its grounds are not in line with TOEBI, especially that Higgs boson and its meaning, I kind of liked the outcome. First of all, the underlying story was just great. Huge amounts of time and money were spend along those years from the idea to the "discovery", so many intelligent people were involved and so on... and even though I don't buy Higgs boson and related field as a mass producer entity, I got a bit of emotional during the announcement at CERN. What a great story and a great movie!
In my previous Higgs related post I kind of went on full blown ranting mode, but to my excuse, it happened when I was young and furious See, people do change, no ranting anymore... And in that previous post, I also predicted that with higher energies we might get new particles. Well, to be honest, new particles are detected already with existing energies, so that prediction wasn't that amazing.
Hopefully, some day, I manage get enough time to really ponder new Standard Model out, so far, TOEBI needs only FTEPs, electrons and photons, everything else is a pretty much some sort of combination of those three and/or particles spinning with different frequencies, but I won't go into details in this post.
Conclusion: Check out the movie and enjoy the excitement!
Originally this post was published partly for about month ago but I didn't have proper time to finish it. Better luck this time...
Both of them comes for free and naturally with TOEBI (notice the new writing style for ToEbi). Locality is one thing that makes sense to most mainstream physicists. But in current QM, realism is abandoned. Let's see what we can do about it.
Based on TOEBI, particles are concrete, rotating, spherical objects, just like a rotating ball or something hence realism is given. There is all the time "well" known TOEBI defined spin vector attached to a particle. Picture below presents the correlation between TOEBI defined spin and spin concept used in mainstream physics.
As you can see, there is a little mismatch between TOEBI spin (vector) and QM spin, so it gives me always an extra headache when I'm converting these concepts back and forth for example when reading QM papers. Bottom line is that TOEBI spin vector presents realism, it just exists all the time with certain values (a direction, a spinning frequency), measured or not.
The question goes, does TOEBI realism agree with QM predictions? It sure does!Continue reading →
Let's figure out how much our Sun bends starlight according to ToEbi. We have all the needed initial figures.
Mass of Sun: kg
Photon mass: kg (Planck constant which in reality is photon mass)
(Stellar) rotation frequency of Sun: 1/s
Sun's radius: m
By integrating over 500 seconds we get pretty much the half of the impulse deflecting starlight.
Hence the total impulse J and deflection angle is then
Which gives rad, however, the measured angle is rad. So, according to ToEbi, Sun's gravitational influence per se doesn't bend starlight as much as observed. There have to be another mechanism also behind the observed deflection.
Let's focus on atomic level interaction between matter and light. What we are looking for is a phenomenon where we observe the bending of light without dispersion like behaviour where the amount of bending depends also on light's wavelength. I will write a paper of its own regarding this matter or write a chapter into future Introduction to ToEbi.
Don't worry, I have more than 20 years until my retirement! Unless I choose to make an early retirement Right... the project. Just for fun I searched for cryocoolers and guess what? Used cryocoolers don't cost as much as one might expect. With thousand bucks or so one can get a pretty decent cryocooler capable of bringing hydrogen under 13.99 K. Oh yeah, that means solid hydrogen!
With solid hydrogen I can, in theory, confirm the unique prediction of TOEBI regarding particle annihilation.